OBServices - DCBL - Claim form - Defence advice

BockinsAnonymous

Hi,

I'm after some advice on how I should word paragraph 3 for a defence submission via MCOL please.

I've read newbies and template defence threads.
AOS was submitted via MCOL 1st Dec, 5 days after issue date of 26th Nov.

Here are some particulars:
Date: 07/04/2022 (!l

The overstay to best of our recollection was only a short period of.time (it was so long ago). The car park is free parking, max stay 2 hours .

We contacted the retailer immediately after the first OBServices PCN, they did not want to help.

Subsequent letters from OBServices ignored.

We've since had 3 DCBL letters this year, all ignored.

Contacted retailer again after third DCBL letter, who did this time email OBServices asking for the PCN to be cancelled. OBServices refused stating it's too late, and to speak to DCBL as it's now with them (we have not contacted DCBL).

So now we're at the claim stage.
Claim form attached.

I'd really appreciate some advice on how to word paragraph 3 for the defence submission.

Thanks in advance.

Gr1pr

Study the paragraph 3 wording in any DCB Legal cases on here,  especially ECP or UKPC cases, and adapt accordingly 

DCBL are not involved here,  only DCB LEGAL 

No admissions 

Coupon-mad

I doubt Observices used the POFA because IMHO they aren't clever enough to get it right. Please show us both sides of the NTK because I haven't got an Observices one yet:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6483542/a-thread-of-pictures-of-parking-firm-ntks/p1

The wording will affect the recommended defence so we need both sides. Please don't say you binned it?

BockinsAnonymous

Thanks for the response @Gr1pr and @Coupon-mad.

Sorry, I don't have the NTK.

I have found this thread which is for the same car park (St John's Retail Park, Wolverhampton) and only a few months prior. There's a PCN pic on the first post. Looks as if it's OBServices trading as OPC:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6293270/observices-opc-private-parking-charge-notice/p1

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 26/11/25 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 01/12/25 and before 15/12/25 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 29/12/25

BockinsAnonymous

@Le_Kirk I completed the AOS on the 01/12/25, not after. Does that make a difference to the defence deadline date?

Thanks in advance.

Le_Kirk

Doesn't seem to.

BockinsAnonymous

@Coupon-mad @Gr1pr I've attempted to draft paragraph 3 with some help from AI..Can you please let me know your thoughts?

3. The facts known to the Defendant:

​a. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle. The Defendant does not admit being the driver and puts the Claimant to strict proof of the driver's identity.

​b. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they have complied with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') to hold the registered keeper liable. The Defendant has not received a POFA-compliant Notice to Keeper. In the absence of strict compliance, the Claimant has no right to pursue the registered keeper.

​c. The Defendant was a genuine customer of Costa Coffee at the retail park on the date in question. The retailer subsequently contacted the Claimant (or their principal) to request the cancellation of this charge, confirming the Defendant's status as a bona fide customer. The Claimant unreasonably rejected or ignored this request from their own principal/landowner.

​d. The allegation of an "overstay" is denied. The vehicle was on site for a duration that included time to find a parking space, read the signage to understand the terms, and a mandatory minimum grace period at the end of the parking session, as required by the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Any alleged time in excess of the parking rules was de minimis and not a breach of contract.

​e. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their authority to operate and issue charges on this land (Locus Standi) and that the signage was adequate to form a contract.

BockinsAnonymous

@Coupon-mad @Gr1pr I've tweaked it slightly based on recent DCB Legal/ECP threads. Is this one good to go?

3. Referring to the Particulars of Claim (‘POC’): Paragraph 1 is denied; the Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £160-£170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

​3.1. The Defendant was a genuine customer of Costa coffee at the retail park on the date in question. The retailer subsequently contacted the Claimant (or their principal) to request the cancellation of this charge, confirming the Defendant's status as a bona fide customer. The Claimant unreasonably rejected or ignored this request from their own principal/landowner.

​3.2. The allegation of an "overstay" is denied. The vehicle was on site for a duration that included time to find a parking space, read the signage to understand the terms, and a mandatory minimum grace period at the end of the parking session, as required by the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Any alleged time in excess of the parking rules was de minimis and not a breach of contract.

​3.3. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle. The Defendant does not admit being the driver and puts the Claimant to strict proof of the driver's identity. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they have complied with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') to hold the registered keeper liable. The Defendant has not received a POFA-compliant Notice to Keeper. In the absence of strict compliance, the Claimant has no right to pursue the registered keeper.

​3.4. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their authority to operate and issue charges on this land (Locus Standi) and that the signage was adequate to form a contract.

Coupon-mad

But that final point is already in the Template.

Personally, I hate Chat GPT.